City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)

[domalino]

Stefan has put him right and Ziegler has said he will clarify.

Clarify is a weird way of saying "correct" or "remove completely false statement".

But at least he is "clarifying", many others do not when confronted with facts.

 

[KS55]

They haven't confirmed anything yet.

UEFA reacted to our settlement in 2014 with this:

View attachment 28932
Seemingly we didn't push back presumably because we were fine with it. PL could potentially introduce something similar and with a lower percentage to impact NUFC. No doubt if they did it could be subject to a legal challenge.

This word "linked" gives the red shirts a huge amount of wriggle room. Mansour is not a member of the Abu Dhabi gov, but is "linked" to it. Similarly, he is not our legal owner, CFG is. Does Mansour's/Adug's majority share holding in CFG mean he is " linked" to us sufficiently to be considered an owner?
30%? Pfft. They'll soon have that down to 15%. Even then, they will struggle to catch us.
Plenty of shenanigans to come.

 

[Corky]

Just occurred to me that this clause makes the Premier League a related party to all or most of the 20 clubs it controls.

The clubs own and control the PL.

 

[KS55]

Did you notice Stefan's little dig at the club? "City seemingly unable to communicate its position on ffp". @projectriver 1 City 0.

 

[Citizen Green]

This word "linked" gives the red shirts a huge amount of wriggle room. Mansour is not a member of the Abu Dhabi gov, but is "linked" to it. Similarly, he is not our legal owner, CFG is. Does Mansour's/Adug's majority share holding in CFG mean he is " linked" to us sufficiently to be considered an owner?
30%? Pfft. They'll soon have that down to 15%. Even then, they will struggle to catch us.
Plenty of shenanigans to come.

I thought Sheikh Mansour was legally listed as the owner of CFG though? So would de facto make him ours also no?

 

[Centurions]

This word "linked" gives the red shirts a huge amount of wriggle room. Mansour is not a member of the Abu Dhabi gov, but is "linked" to it. Similarly, he is not our legal owner, CFG is. Does Mansour's/Adug's majority share holding in CFG mean he is " linked" to us sufficiently to be considered an owner?
30%? Pfft. They'll soon have that down to 15%. Even then, they will struggle to catch us.
Plenty of shenanigans to come.

It is at around 15% of total revenue now is it not? And if correct has been for a goodly number of years.

 

[halfcenturyup]

They haven't confirmed anything yet.

UEFA reacted to our settlement in 2014 with this:

View attachment 28932
Seemingly we didn't push back presumably because we were fine with it. PL could potentially introduce something similar and with a lower percentage to impact NUFC. No doubt if they did it could be subject to a legal challenge.

"Linked to" doesn't sound a particularly well defined term. Is it further defined in the regs?

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

It is at around 15% of total revenue now is it not? And if correct has been for a goodly number of years.

Well we don't know the exact extent of Abu Dhabi sponsorships but for perspective our turnover in the last published full non-covid accounts for 18/19 was £535 million. So, £80 mil or £160 mil at 15% or 30%.

As for historically the c15% figure was something I heard on pods 93.20 etc. For example, after 17/18 accounts were published, PB estimated Etihad to be £55mil and 3 other Abi Dhabi sponsorships to be £15 mil for a total of £70mil out of a total of £232 million commercial and £503mil turnover. £70mil is just 13% of £503mil.

However, following the Der Spiegel leaks and everything that followed, it was apparent how much we took the piss (with just cause imo :) in the early days of FFP. It came out that in 2013 our Abu Dhabi sponsorship was c £65mil Etihad and £50mil Aabar, Etisilat and ADTA. £115 mil was 42% of 12/13 turnover of £271mil or 33% of 13/14 turnover of £347 mil.

The 30% limit was set in 2015 for the 15/16 year and onwards. How convenient eh? No problem for us - we were away and heading for the sun BUT what a great brake if anyone else tried the same thing from scratch when initial turnover not as mature as ours. We were away but the drawbridge up for anyone else... also it is hard to imagine UEFA didn't set the 30% limit without input from the G14 boys.... then the leaks fucked everything up.

 

[M18CTID]

Martin Ziegler with PL "related party" update:



The scary thing is that Ziegler is supposed to be on top of these things, has reported widely on City FFP and even at times briefed by City YET he still refers to Etihad as a fucking related party transaction


View attachment 28928

Aside from Ziegler getting that wrong about Etihad, aren't related party sponsorships judged against true market value anyway? So unless I'm missing something, this doesn't really change anything

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

"Linked to" doesn't sound a particularly well defined term. Is it further defined in the regs?

I've not seen it but one of the "leaks" articles quoted a letter to us from UEFA reminding us that it applies to us :)

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

Aside from Ziegler getting that wrong about Etihad, aren't related party sponsorships judged against true market value anyway? So unless I'm missing something, this doesn't really change anything

Yes, against fair market value.

And our accountants/auditors deemed Etisalat, aabar and adta weren't related parties either so theoretically they could sponsor us for far more than they did.

UEFA didn't like it (particularly with those 3) and hence the 30% cap referred to as above.

 

[M18CTID]

Yes, against fair market value. And our accountants/auditors deemed Etisalat, aabar and adta weren't either.
UEFA didn't like it (particularly with those 3) and hence the 30% cap referred to as above.

Is there a difference between true market value and fair market value?

Also, these disputes about what is and isn't a related party. Should there even be any disputes if everyone's working to IAS24? I'd have thought if our auditors - who are amongst the most reputable in the business - would know what they're talking about if they don't deem certain sponsors to be related parties, and as such there's not much UEFA or the PL can do about it?

 

[KS55]

I thought Sheikh Mansour was legally listed as the owner of CFG though? So would de facto make him ours also no?

Don't know about "legally listed". Where?
ADUG owns 77% of CFG. CITY is wholly owned by CFG.. With more than 75%, a shareholder effective controls the entity and does not have to consult other shareholders tho, of course, he would.
(We do not know who the shareholders in ADUG are. It is always described as owned and managed by Mansour, but possibly has other members of the royal family in it.)
After some hoo ha about Ken Bates and offshore funds, the PL, I think, introduced a rule that the beneficial owners of clubs must be disclosed. Irrespective of the general law, I would expect the PL to say that Mansour was a beneficial owner of City.
Just one aspect of the can of worms about to open up.

 

[KS55]

Is there a difference between true market value and fair market value?

Also, these disputes about what is and isn't a related party. Should there even be any disputes if everyone's working to IAS24? I'd have thought if our auditors - who are amongst the most reputable in the business - would know what they're talking about if they don't deem certain sponsors to be related parties, and as such there's not much UEFA or the PL can do about it?

This illustrates the difference between the general law and a special rule within an organisation. The special rule could not change the status of "not related" for accounting purposes. PL would have to be very careful in framing the new regs not to fall foul of an action for restraint of trade, if adopting a special rule that was not IAS 24.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Is there a difference between true market value and fair market value?

Also, these disputes about what is and isn't a related party. Should there even be any disputes if everyone's working to IAS24? I'd have thought if our auditors - who are amongst the most reputable in the business - would know what they're talking about if they don't deem certain sponsors to be related parties, and as such there's not much UEFA or the PL can do about it?

The question for me is how do you define "value"? A global brand like Amazon or Apple could sponsor us for £50m a year but because they're such well-known, global brands they'll get little added value from that. Whereas if you're a smaller company, in a competitive environment, then potentially that £50m could bring you huge value in terms of brand recognition and revenue growth.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Don't know about "legally listed". Where?
ADUG owns 77% of CFG. CITY is wholly owned by CFG.. With more than 75%, a shareholder effective controls the entity and does not have to consult other shareholders tho, of course, he would.
(We do not know who the shareholders in ADUG are. It is always described as owned and managed by Mansour, but possibly has other members of the royal family in it.)
After some hoo ha about Ken Bates and offshore funds, the PL, I think, introduced a rule that the beneficial owners of clubs must be disclosed. Irrespective of the general law, I would expect the PL to say that Mansour was a beneficial owner of City.
Just one aspect of the can of worms about to open up.

ADUG is explicitly described in our accounts to be wholly owned by Sheikh Mansour, who is listed at Companies House as a person with significant control (as he owns more than 75% of CFG's shares).

 

[Newman Noggs]

Why don't they just simplify things and say "all sponsorship must be approved by Manchester United and Liverpool".

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

Is there a difference between true market value and fair market value?

Also, these disputes about what is and isn't a related party. Should there even be any disputes if everyone's working to IAS24? I'd have thought if our auditors - who are amongst the most reputable in the business - would know what they're talking about if they don't deem certain sponsors to be related parties, and as such there's not much UEFA or the PL can do about it?

As per your 2nd para this was the crux of the 2014 settlement.
PWC acting as consultants for UEFA argued, amongst other things, that our Abu Dhabi sponsorships were related and City said fuck off they are not because they have not been reported under IAS24 in our accounts and we will see you in court if you push it.

UEFA clearly used IAS24 definitions as part of the FFP rules and we didn't break them as regards sponsorships. This hasn't changed with UEFA BUT they introduced the cap as referred to as above that if total sponsorship value exceeds 30% of turnover they can apply "fair market value" test even if not related for purposes of IAS24. Whether this can be challenged legally god knows but it didn't make any difference to us.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

I have this recurring image these days of City being the heavyweight boxer (Tyson Fury) at arms length and one hand resting on the head of Amir Khan (the cabal), letting the little shit just throw wild air punches.

 

[Xhavenjoe]

I have this recurring image these days of City being the heavyweight boxer (Tyson Fury) at arms length and one hand resting on the head of Amir Khan (the cabal), letting the little shit just throw wild air punches.

Could see a lot of hitting below the belt in that scenario.